Robert is making a good point, and I agree with it. Developing standards does not mean that there can be only solution, especially to a network design ;-). Take, for example, Service Providers WAN networks. Each is using a different solution and different standard protocols. This is because different organizations have different business requirements, different IT approaches, different network operations approaches, etc. The same is true for Data Centers. Why would we think that there has to be one Data Center Virtualization solution? There is no reason that it has to be, even more than in core network space.
Specifically, if a problem statement document for a data center virtualization assumes that there is a bridge domain then the requirements (and of course, the solution) will be different then if such an assumption doesn't exist. So, either we accommodate all the above in one problem statement draft draft or we separate them into different documents. Or we narrow this group's scope. Maria > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 9:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] inter-CUG traffic > > Hi Robert, > > Robert Raszuk : > > To me it seems rather clear that going for _single_ NVO3 solution to > > accommodate partial pieces of various (apparently very different) > > requirements to only enforce that we all must be on the same single > > bus is rather a poor choice. > > On the other hand, we are working under the implicit assumption that > having standards can be useful. > We can go beyond saying that the requirements are "different" and > observe that some use cases are particular cases of more general use > cases. Identifying one generic solution that would be able to also > address the subset use caess can be beneficial to everybody. > > -Thomas > > > > >> There are clear data center architectures, and data center > deployments, > >> where optimal inter-subnet routing is important. Equally clearly, > there > >> are cases where bouncing everything off the gateway is sufficient. > And > >> cases in between. > >> > >> It seems to me that the framework and problem statement efforts > should > >> not mandate that one particular point on that spectrum is a MUST for > all > >> NVO3 solutions. > >> > >> Yours, > >> Joel > >> > >> On 7/2/2012 10:52 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > >>> Hi Joel, > >>> > >>>> So I was urging that we not mandate optimal inter-subnet routing > as > >>>> part > >>>> of the NVO3 requirements. > >>> > >>> If my customers who happen to try my standards based offering to > run > >>> their 3-tier applications will perform their application level > >>> measurements (and trust me - all of them do it these days) and find > >>> that > >>> my competition offers more optimal data plane results via non > standard > >>> solution - I will likely loose those customers. > >>> > >>> While in L2 VNs going via some randomly placed gateway may be ok in > L3 > >>> services I am afraid the bar is already much higher today. That > >>> actually > >>> is one good reason to decouple NVO3 requirements for L2 and L3 VN > >>> services and address them separately. > >>> > >>> Thx, > >>> R. > > _______________________________________________________________________ > __________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les > messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a > ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for > messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
